1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SHELTON ADAMS, et al., Case No. 21-cv-08545-JST

8 Plaintiffs,

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION

9 v. TO MAGISTRATE DISCOVERY

ORDER

10 CRAIG ALAN KOENIG, et al., Re: ECF No. 185 Defendants. 11

12 13 On September 8, 2025, the Court referred this case to Magistrate Judge Tse for the purpose 14 of conducting a discovery conference and determining “the precise discovery each party will take 15 to enable that party to select its proposed bellwether plaintiffs.” ECF No. 142. After receiving a 16 total of four separate proposals from the parties, ECF Nos. 145, 146, 179, 180, and conducting a 17 hearing, Judge Tse issued an order “adopting Defendants’ proposed plan to limit discovery prior to 18 selections of bellwether plaintiffs to the D-Wing.” ECF No. 185 at 2. On December 16, 2025, 19 Plaintiffs filed an objection to Judge Tse’s order, which is now before the Court. ECF No. 190. 20 A magistrate judge's discovery order may be modified or set aside if it is “clearly 21 erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “The ‘clearly erroneous’ standard applies to 22 factual findings and discretionary decisions made in connection with non-dispositive pretrial 23 discovery matters.” Yanikian v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 16-CV-03030-BRO(PJWX), 2017 WL 24 11634978, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2017) (citation modified). “When a discovery order centers on 25 a magistrate's determination of relevance, ‘the standard of review in most instances is not the 26 explicit statutory language, but the clearly implicit standard of abuse of discretion.’” Equal Emp. 27 Opportunity Comm’n v. Peters’ Bakery, 301 F.R.D. 482, 484–85 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (citation 1 “Plaintiffs oppose limiting discovery to any particular wing and argue that ‘[d]iscovery 2 || will narrow naturally once the bellwether decision is made.’” ECF No. 185 at 2 (quoting ECF No. 3 180 at 4). They argue that Judge Tse’s plan “will . . . heighten the risk that an unintelligent 4 || bellwether selection will be made by Plaintiffs and thereby reduce or negate the chance that the 5 || result of the first test trial will be seen as sufficiently educational to justify resolving the remainder 6 || of cases.” Id. at 2. They also complain that there should be no limits on discovery until they have 7 obtained the names of all the guards who participated in extracting incarcerated men from their 8 cells during the Operation Akili raid. Jd. at 5-9. 9 The Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion.! Judge Tse found Plaintiffs’ position 10 || to be “untenable,” given that it was neither “workable” nor “reasonable.” Jd. Having read 11 Plaintiffs’ submissions to Judge Tse, the Court agrees. Plaintiffs failed to offer a structure of any 12 || kind to govern discovery, making it impossible to “identify[] the precise discovery each party will 5 13 || take to enable that party to select its proposed bellwether plaintiffs.” ECF No. 142. 14 The Court therefore overrules Plaintiffs’ objection and adopts the Defendants’ proposed 3 15 discovery plan to limit discovery prior to selection of bellwether plaintiffs to the D-Wing. a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. . = 17 Dated: January 5, 2026 Op:

JON S. TIGAR

19 nited States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' The Court would reach the same result under a de novo standard of review.